Sign up for the Brownstoner daily email
« Subway Service on Weekends Is F@#%ed Brooklyn Sales: Under a Million »

November 5, 2009

Walkabout: Italianates, the Ornamental Imperative

A mid 19th century magazine, extolling the virtues of the Italianate brownstone, declared that, “the doorway is the most indispensable feature of the structure, and therefore calls loudly for adornment, and should generally be distinguished by more impressive decoration than any other feature”. Architects of the time must have been listening, and many went overboard, piling layers of ornament on the doorways of our buildings. Perhaps even more than the other decorative elements, the doorways of the Italianate brownstone define the style. In the most expensive homes, the doorway is a porch at the top of the stairs, formed by large columns with ornate capitals, holding heavy door hoods that are either rounded, or classic triangular pediments, with heavy carved keystones above the doors. These are flanked by enormous acanthus leaf brackets which face the street. Smaller acanthus brackets can often be found facing each other in the doorway, and for good measure, more acanthus brackets often frame the windows, and/or support the large window box shelves below the parlor floor windows. There are fine examples in Brooklyn Heights, as well as on Washington Park, in Fort Greene.

Most of the Italianates in Brooklyn do not have the columns, a feature for only the most expensive homes, but all have the acanthus brackets. Some of these brackets are beautiful in their expression of plant forms, and are in amazing condition. Some architects must have wanted to show off something different, and we can find fantastical combinations of leaves, flowers and decorative shapes. Some of these can be a bit disturbing at first glance, and to the modern eye, look like mutant plants run wild, or extruded foam, especially when the lines have been blurred by water damage, and badly painted over or “repaired”. The more creepily vegetal remind us that tastes certainly change over time, and that the desire to please a demanding public can often result in the overdone.

Like any architectural style, over the course of its popularity, the Italianate brownstone can be found in its pure form, as a gracious upper class dwelling, and its knock-offs, as details are simplified for more middle class houses, and again, simplified even more for smaller working class homes, and the acanthus bracket becomes a plain curved shape. As the years go by, similar styles emerge, and styles are mixed with wild abandon. The addition of a mansard roof, found often as a fifth floor, classifies these Italianates as Second Empire, named after the popularity of the mansard roof in the architecture of Napoleon II, in France. The addition of carved ornamental patterns incised into the brownstone, alongside familiar Italianate motifs, shows the influence of the Neo-Grec style, itself a popular style here in Brooklyn. The Anglo Italianate has a short stoop and an English basement. Because of their flat surfaces, Italianates and their cousins were easy prey for the “modernizing” of brownstones that took place in the 20th century. Cornices, window and door hoods, brackets, and even the graceful double doors have vanished on too many of our streets, leaving bare flat surfaces, “improved” by paint, stucco, brick and stone faces, and even vinyl siding. In many of our historic districts as well as unprotected areas, it is not uncommon to see the ornate stoops removed for ground floor entrances, and the tall parlor floor windows bricked in to hold standard window sizes, or doorways filled in to accommodate cheap factory doors. Fortunately, there are still surviving rows of intact Italianates in many neighborhoods, all of which remind us of why we love our brownstones. Long may they stand. Photo album on Flickr.

Charles Lockwood's Bricks and Brownstone remains the bible for our brownstone heritage, and was the source of much of the historic and stylistic information. If you love this stuff, you must own this book.




Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12153

Comments

Why this paticular leaf (acanthus leaf)? What is the significance?

Posted by: bedstuy11216 at November 5, 2009 10:48 AM

Once again M.M. comes through. Love this piece.

Posted by: BK realestate veteran at November 5, 2009 10:55 AM

It's a very old motif, dating back to the Greeks because the acanthus is a mediterrean plant- a thorny one at that. Some people say it represents long life or immortality, others seem to think its just a pleasing, symmetrical form. It's probably one of the most enduring visual motifs in Western Civilization.

Posted by: bxgrl at November 5, 2009 10:56 AM

Great work, MM.

I don't understand, though.
Some of the ornaments in the photos look new.
How did they withstand the decaying elements of time?
Or, are some of the ornaments in the photos replacements?

Posted by: Pigeon at November 5, 2009 11:10 AM

BS11216, the ultimate source for the entire style is Classical Greco-Roman architecture, especially as evidenced in the triangular pediments, the columns, when they appear, etc. The acanthus leaf is most often found on the capitals of columns, and elsewhere in the architectural portfolio. One 19th century source likens the acanthus to the Greeks and Romans as the equivalent of the lotus leaf was to the ancient Egyptians. It's everywhere. It is said to symbolize life, rebirth and immortality.

The Victorians loved acanthus leaves. In addition to the Italianate door brackets, they are found throughout mid to late 19th century ornament, in cornice brackets, interior corbels and brackets, and in the spiny stone ornament known as Byzantine leaf, which took the acanthus to almost every surface of Romanesque and Queen Anne architecture. They are also the leaves most often used in conjunction with creating the "Green Men" and animals, those faces with the thick leaves making up their faces.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 5, 2009 11:11 AM

Thanks, bxgrl. I always wondered.

This may sound weird but I always thought that the curve and placement of some of the leaf motifs on the brownstones looked like testicles. Especially from far away.

Posted by: bedstuy11216 at November 5, 2009 11:12 AM

Thanks MM, I always look forward to your write ups.

Posted by: bedstuy11216 at November 5, 2009 11:17 AM

bedstuy11216- ROTFL! MM and I laugh ourselves sick when we walk through Clinton Hill. Some of those motifs make me blush! But don't forget- if ever an era suffered from strange repression, it was the Victorian era. They couldn't even look at a piano leg without going to confession for impure thoughts. I can just see some craftsmen hanging the ornamentation, turning to his helper and saying, "You think they'll get it?" "Naah! ! It's foliage, man!" And they both go off, snickering.

Posted by: bxgrl at November 5, 2009 11:18 AM

Pigeon, I don't know for sure, but I would be surprised to find out that any of it was replacements. MAYBE in Brooklyn Heights, where there has always been money, but even there, I would chalk it up to high quality stone used in the first place, carved correctly, installed correctly, and on buildings that were maintained throughout their lives. Also, in many cases, the ornament was protected from a lot of wear and tear by the door and shelf hoods and pediments that these things sit under.

They aren't all in that good shape. In walking around taking photos, I'd go down a block, like on Vanderbilt, between Gates and Greene, and out of 8 houses with the same carved brackets, a couple would be in perfect shape, a couple more would have one bracket in much better shape than the other, and one or two would almost be unrecognizable. I took photos of the perfect ones. I'd have to say, just from walking around, and this is by no means a scientific survey, a third of the ornament still existing is in great shape, a third has damage and wear, some not all that noticeable from a distance or a photograph, and a third is severely damaged, and/or held together by layers of paint, bad blobby attempts at repair, and sheer willpower.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at November 5, 2009 11:23 AM

Love this stuff. Thanks MM!

Posted by: Johnny at November 5, 2009 12:02 PM

excellent writeup MM. I agree that "Bricks and Brownstones" is a terrific reference for anyone interested in the stylistic development of residential architecture in NYC.
I would just add that the ornate quality of the Italianate style may have been a natural follow-up to the relative austerity of the Greek Revival style that was fading from fashion by 1845. New Yorkers of that period were prospering and I suppose they wanted to show off a little. This was never a puritanical city like Boston.


Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 5, 2009 12:16 PM

Great post, MM. What I've loved seeing over the past decade or so is the large number of houses, certainly in Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens, where owners are un-doing all of the 20th Century "modernization". Stoops, cornices, window and door hoods, and entire facades are being completely restored, with all the detail. And I've also seen quite a few houses where the tall parlor floor windows and double doors are being restored to their original size - two houses being restored in this fashion right now on Amity and Pacific Streets in Cobble Hill.

Posted by: CarrollGardened at November 5, 2009 12:19 PM

"Calls Loudly for Adornment" sums it all up! Reminds me of Tom Wolfe's description in "Bauhaus to Our House" of the ungrateful proletariat sprucing up their Modernist boxes with fripperies. Something in the human soul calls loudly for adornment, and that's why we still love Victorian Brooklyn!

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at November 5, 2009 12:41 PM

As always, thanks Rose!

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at November 5, 2009 3:22 PM

Thanks Montrose for this enlightenment. I will look at doors and adornments differently.

As you wrote (above) of the 6-inches of Brownstone over brick, what do you know about the row houses that are just brick with no brownstone over the brick, such as those at Cobble Hill by the water? As in, are they just as durable without the further 6-inches of brownstone?

And do you or someone here know exactly how thick is the brick between the row houses? I ask that for a particular reason that I would explain later. Thanks, Montrose.

Thanks, too, Minard for your additional comments.

Posted by: BklynSoFar at November 5, 2009 7:29 PM

sofar, your question is interesting and this is what I know:
bricks were expensive and they were used sparingly. Most mid-century houses had bearing walls three bricks deep. But that would reduce to two above the second floor where the loads were not as great. When houses were built as a row, there was a further economy as one three-brick wall could support the floor beams of two adjacent houses. The trick was to stagger the beam pockets on each side of the wall. Still, on the upper floors, the wall was reduced to two bricks wythes. Fragile construction really. The sandstone veneer on the front facade was decoration -an important factor in the selling of real estate then as now. It is important to note that when these houses were built, labor was cheap but materials such as bricks and nails were expensive. Therefore the bearing walls were often underbuilt and the staircases under-nailed. However the hand carved volutes and acanthus-decorated consoles were plentiful.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at November 5, 2009 8:29 PM

Minard, thank you for this complex and detailed answer. It is fascinating. I'd like to reply to you Friday or on the weekend, if you have time to check this thread again. Right now I just became tired (!) to explain why I asked. So thank you so much for your time and educated answer. (Actually don't know if I can post on Friday, so more like the weekend.)

Posted by: BklynSoFar at November 5, 2009 10:28 PM

Interesting. In our 1890s frame house (which has bricks inside the walls and between the 2x4s) the brick party wall looks like it's only one brick deep. I should look closer -- maybe it's two. In any case, it has gaping holes in it.

The outside walls are thicker, but not by a lot.

Posted by: mopar at November 5, 2009 11:58 PM

Montrose, I love all your Walkabouts, and this post in particular! Lockwood is the bible on this subject. That said (please excuse the blatant plug here) my new book Restoring a House in the City has a section on brownstone. True brownstone was so porous and prone to water damage--one of the most fragile building materials ever employed in construction--that any original examples still hanging on are likely to be in very poor shape. In the 20th century, artisans from Europe brought Mediterranean stucco techniques to America, and adapted them for brownstone repair. Both original brownstone and the more durable stucco substitute that has for the most part replaced it is all hand-sculpted and hand-done. It's not like chipping away at stone; both methods use a soft material that is sculpted and carved by hand into amazing flourishes like acanthus scrolls, leaves, and flowers. The Europeans trained subsequent generations of brownstone artisans, including the ones we see working out on our streets today. While not all brownstone repairers can do this kind of work, some modern brownstone craftsmen are incredible in what they can do. Without them, this would be a lost art. Meanwhile, Montrose, do you do actual walking tours? Love to join one.

Posted by: Ingrid Abramovitch at November 6, 2009 10:43 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions